Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] (group) maintainership models

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> In my very first KS I found the maintainership model presentations
> (x86-tip & armsoc) rather interesting. And last year we've had an
> ad-hoc discussion about group maintainership again. I think drm&i915
> would be an interesting case since over the past year I've done some
> changes which are at the edge of what's common in the kernel, and it
> seems to work (at least for us) fairly well. I discussed this a bit
> with a few folks at ELC San Diego too.
>
> Short summary: i915 has now a two-level maintenance model with 2
> maintainers (who take the blame) and 15 people who can push patches.

Having joined this particular ride at the point of going from one to two
maintainers (which was really a bigger workflow and tooling change than
adding the rest), I'd like to join the discussion.

BR,
Jani.

> In a way a rather big group, but not so big that people don't all know
> each another any more personally. We have some detailed docs about the
> patch flow and expectations:
>
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/drm-intel.html
>
> and about the dim tool used to support this all
>
> https://01.org/linuxgraphics/gfx-docs/maintainer-tools/dim.html
>
> But I think the more interesting bits are why I decided to try this
> out, what I hoped would happen, what I feared might happen. And with 1
> year of experience, what actually happens and what I think is needed
> to make this work and an actual benefit over more traditional
> maintainer models. And of course I'd like to compare notes with other
> group maintainers.
>
> Cheers, Daniel

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center